Who would be prime minister without Lloyd George?

  • H.H. Asquith

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • Bonar Law

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Austen Chamberlain

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Edward Carson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please write below)

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Total voters
    14
Lloyd George was undoubtedly one of the most important British prime ministers in the 20th century, leading the Wartime Coalition government and leading his country to victory in World War I. In addition, he was already a powerful figure in British politics by the time he became prime minister, as one of the chief people who helped piece together the new coalition government.

However, say Lloyd George is assassinated or otherwise forced to withdraw from politics before his rapid ascent to power. Who would have stepped up in his place? Would a Wartime Coalition even form at all?
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
I'm not sure that any other Liberal would have been seen as a potential PM by Bonar Law. The House of Commons means without a major Liberal split there is no way the Conservative & Unionist Party can command a majority. So in that event assuming there is enough Liberal feeling that Asquith must go you are looking at replacing him with another Liberal. In that event i would go for McKenna. But my vote goes for Asquith - I don't think by that stage that without Lloyd George providing an alternative there would be enough Liberals ready to strike down the PM or to stand with the Opposition to give Bonar Law a majority. Churchill doesn't have anywhere near the support LG had, and was anathema to the Tories; Carson is still the Unionist bogeyman. Events in 1917 could see Asquith go, voluntarily or no, but I'd still go for a Liberal replacement.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I'm not sure that any other Liberal would have been seen as a potential PM by Bonar Law. The House of Commons means without a major Liberal split there is no way the Conservative & Unionist Party can command a majority. So in that event assuming there is enough Liberal feeling that Asquith must go you are looking at replacing him with another Liberal. In that event i would go for McKenna. But my vote goes for Asquith - I don't think by that stage that without Lloyd George providing an alternative there would be enough Liberals ready to strike down the PM or to stand with the Opposition to give Bonar Law a majority. Churchill doesn't have anywhere near the support LG had, and was anathema to the Tories; Carson is still the Unionist bogeyman. Events in 1917 could see Asquith go, voluntarily or no, but I'd still go for a Liberal replacement.
Who would be the biggest radical figure ITTL? Maybe Charles Masterman. He was certainly less corrupt than DLG, which would be a good thing for the Liberals ITTL. However, I don't know much about his political skills.

Also, I can see certain changes in political and social developments, e.g. the People's Budget and House of Lords reform. Things might have been different.

@pipisme @David T what do you think about this?
 
Last edited:
McKenna who had been very competent at the Admiralty and was extremely economically literate would be the most likely PM if Asquith had to go. Haldane would have been even better but was regarded as too pro-German.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
McKenna who had been very competent at the Admiralty and was extremely economically literate would be the most likely PM if Asquith had to go. Haldane would have been even better but was regarded as too pro-German.
McKenna is a good centrist candidate within the party.

The hypothetical TTL Minister of Munition can also succeed Asquith. I think Edwin Montagu might have a chance ITTL if Asquith appoints him as the Minister of Munition.

Also, there would be another prominent radical figure, as Campbell-Bannerman would certainly elevate a radical to an important Cabinet minister position. I can see Charles Masterman being that guy, and if so he could also be appointed as Minister of Munition in 1915.
 
Top